Writ petition for refund of contractual deposits is not maintainable where disputed questions of fact exist.

The petitioners applied for commercial plots (Nos. 9, 10, and 11) under the "Devendra Nagar Commercial Complex Scheme" floated by the Raipur Development Authority (RDA) in 2018.

They deposited an aggregate amount of ₹73,14,000/-.

Disputes arose regarding the non-disclosure of 18% GST in the tender documents and subsequent statutory defects in the scheme, specifically that a portion of the land comprised a water body, leading the State Government to reject the layout plan multiple times between 2019 and 2022.

Although other similarly situated allottees were previously relegated to arbitration by a Single Judge in 2024, the petitioners alleged that the RDA failed to include them in arbitration proceedings despite requests.

The petitioners filed this writ seeking a refund of their deposits with 12% interest, contending the contract was frustrated.

1. Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct the refund of money arising out of a contractual dispute.

2. Whether the High Court should adjudicate complex factual disputes regarding statutory compliance and contract frustration in summary writ proceedings.

The Court applied the established principle that Article 226 is generally not the appropriate vehicle for enforcing pure contractual rights or seeking recovery of money.

It held that where a dispute involves a "contractual domain" and necessitates the examination of "disputed questions of fact," the parties must be relegated to civil courts or alternative dispute resolution forums.

The court emphasized that unless a clear violation of a statutory or constitutional mandate is demonstrated, contractual defaults do not warrant extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

The Court reasoned that the relationship between the petitioners and the RDA was fundamentally contractual, originating from a tender-cum-allotment process.

To determine if the petitioners were entitled to a refund, the Court would have to investigate the terms of allotment, the nature of the alleged statutory impediments, and whether the contract was legally "frustrated"—tasks that require evidence-based adjudication.

The Court noted that the petitioners’ claim for refund with interest is essentially a suit for the recovery of money.

It found no "exceptional circumstance" to override the standard rule of relegating contractual money claims to civil forums, especially since the petitioners’ previous attempts to join arbitration were stalled.

The Court answered the issues by stating that the appropriate remedy lies before a competent Civil Court or another jurisdictional forum.

However, the Court granted the petitioners liberty to pursue their claims for refund and consequential reliefs through a civil suit or other legal forums in accordance with the law.